Return this book on or before the 
Latest Date stamped below. 


University of Illinois Library 





L161—H41 











a LOBBYING 


MARGARET A. SCHAFFNER 


COMPARATIVE LEGISLATION BULLETIN—NO 2—JANUARY, 1906 


Compiled with the co-operation of the Political Science De- 
partment of the University of Wisconsin 


WISCONSIN FREE LIBRARY COMMISSION 
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DEPARTMENT 
MADISON WIS 
1906 


CONTENTS. 


REE MRE NCES © os vais s.08 65 ose eine staan 


KINDS OF LOBBYING 
Definitions Wo sieks one sree eee 


Legaleversus dllegaloservices ivan cans cto lives crete stars 
Methods of influencing legislation 


oeeeree eee eee e ee eee 


Doctrine of our courts 


eoceeeceeeee eee eee er esesees eee eve 


The real issue 


RULES, LAWS, AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS 
Foreign countries 


United States 


Coben se 6 © 8 #10 2 0-€ 
a 6 fe. 10. -0 a) G0 90 a 0/50) €) 0 60 6,6 0 Bane 0.6 9 8 6 6 


Ce a i 


REMEDIES® a... «5 Bee ganar sane 


2 le © ee © 0 6 @ 046 06 6 0.9 @ © 6.6 a 6 6 6 


Restrictions on legislators 


Ce 


Limitations upon legislative procedure 


ews 60) eo 4 U Sie aie « 


Restraining devices 


2 elie 0 © ‘we 6 0) ee le 0 6 6 6:0)» 8) 4 6.0.16 © See, 0] Se, 6 


Positive remedies 


=O Ae TF 6s Se we 6 ee eC 8 ee 6 8 ee 


; 


GR bebe 


. 


re) 


bf. 





4 


REFERENCES 


American digest. Century ed. St. Paul, 1897. 


See title Constitutional Law, subtitle Distribution of Gov- 
ernmental Powers and Functions; also see subtitle Contracts 
to Influence Legislation. 


American and English encyclopaedia of law. 2nd ed. 
Northport, 1896-1905. 


See title JZilegal Contracts, subtitle Contracts to Influence 
Legislation. 


ANSON, WILLIAM R. The law and custom of the constitu- 
tion. Oxford, 1892. 2 vols. 


Private bill legislation, vol. 1, p. 262-267. <A brief histori- 
eal outline for England. 


AUSTRALIA. The annotated constitution of the Australian 
Commonwealth by Quick & Garran. Sydney, 1901. 


Const. sec. 50. Annotations relate to Standing Orders for 
private bill procedure. 


Bourinot, G. S. Parliamentary procedure and practice with 
an introductory account of the origin and growth of 
parliamentary institutions in Canada. Montreal, 1884. 

Describes private bill practice in Canada, p. 584-680. 


Cootey, THomas M. A treatise on constitutional limita- 
tions which rest upon the legislative power of the 
states of the American Union. 7th ed. Boston, 1908.. 

Gives judicial decisions on lobbying contracts, p. 196-199; 


and constitutional provisions to prevent log-rolling legisla- 
ieetion. p. 202-217. 


E2NTSG 


4 LOBBYING 


Storey, Moorrietp. ‘The American legislature. Albany 
law journal, Sept. 22, 1894, vol. 50, p. 187-197. 


Considers remedies for evils of lobbying. 


WHEELER, G. J. The practice of private bills with she 
standing orders of the House of Lords and House of 
Commons and rules as to the provisional orders. Lion- 
don, 1900. 


Appendix gives text of Standing Orders. | 
‘WHITNEY, TRAVIS H. The need of legislative experts. 
Green bag, Sept. 1905. vol. 17, p. 78-82. . 


Shows need of counteracting the influence of private in- 
terests on legislation. 


LOBBYING 5 


KINDS OF LOBBYING 


A general uniformity of opinion prevails in English 
and American jurisdictions on the subject of lobbying. 


Definitions 

it he tollowmg definitions are typical: 
Oi isconsin. Y* Ura lobby is for a person not belong- 
uf to the eae to address or solicit members of 
the legislative body, in the lobby or elsewhere, away 
from the house, with a view to influencing their votes.” } 


C4 eee CO, Coot. PLM. & -O. Ro Co, 1889; 
75 Wis. 224. | 


United States. “Lobby services are personal solici- 
tations by persons supposed to have personal influence 
with members of Congress to procure the passage of a 
bill.” Trist v. Child, 1874, 88 U. S. 441. 


‘New York. “ ‘Lobby services’ are generally defined 
to.mean the use of personal solicitation, the exercise of 
personal influence, and improper or corrupt methods, 

whereby legislative or official action is to be the prod-_ 
uct” Dunhanmy. H. RP. Co. 1900, 56 N. Y. App. Div. | 


2014. 


6 LOBBYING | 


} 


Legal versus illegal services 
ed 


United States. Numerous decisions of the Unit 
States supreme court point out the distinction between 
legal and illegal attempts to influence legislation. 

In Trist v. Child, decided in 1874, Justice Swayne 
said: “Services which are intended to reach only the. 
reason of those sought to be influenced rest on the sarne 
principles of-ethics as professional services and are no 
more exceptionable. They include drafting the petition 
which sets forth the claim, attending to the taking of 
testimony, collecting facts, preparing arguments and 
submitting them orally or in writing to a committee, 
and other services of a like character; but such sei y- 
ices are Separated by a broad line of demarcation from 
personal solicitation, and though compensation can be 
recovered for them when they stand alone, yet when 
they are blended and confused with those which % 

‘ forbidden, the whole is a unit and indivisible, and ti 
which is bad destroys the good.” 88 U. S. 441. aes 

In another leading case the same court held “It is, | 
however, the right of every citizen who is interested 
in any proposed legislation to employ a paid agent to 
collect evidence and facts to draft his bill and explain 
it to any committee or to any member thereof or of — 
the legislature fairly and openly and ask to have it in- 
troduced ; and contracts which do not provide for mote 
and services which do not go farther, violate no prin- 
ciple of law or rule of public policy... But it is neceh- 
sary to disclose agency to prevent the contract from 
being illegal’ Marshall v. .B. & O} 2Resazomames £3: 
57 U. S. 314; and “contracts providing for coma- | 
pensation contingent upon success are void as against 
public policy,” Trist v. Child, 1874, 88 U. S. 441. 


LOBBYING T 


Methods of influencing legislation 

‘The methods of lobbying are as various as are the 
iaterests represented. /The courts distinguish between 
secret lobbying and open advocacy but it is not always 
easy to place the ban upon illegitimate methods with- 
out interfering with those which result in improved 
legislation. It has been urged that forbidding lobby- 
ists to.discuss measures with members of the legisla- 
ture will merely deter the better class of lobbyists and 
champions of worthy measures, while unprincipled 
ones would not be prosecuted for violating the law 
Among laws recently secured through organized in- 
‘ fluence brought to bear upon legislators are those 
establishing juvenile courts, compulsory education, and 
similar measures. Again in some states where corrup- 
-vion has been most flagrant the visible lobby has 
, largely disappeared, in one well known case the gover- 
‘nor,of the state acting as go-between for private in- 
terests demanding special privileges and legislators 
whose seats were controlled by means of campaign 
contributions. Another state illustrates the capacity of 
a United States senator acting as boss for his state to 
so control matters that a wink or a nod from one of 
his sub-lieutenants would secure any legislative favors 
desired by those supplying campaign funds. /Inade- 
quate as these illustrations are they suffice to show 
that the lobbying question involves more than mere 
prohibition of personal solicitation of legislators. 
Thien again the influence of some of the most power- 
ful lobbies for private as opposed to public interests is 
exercised along legitimate lines at least so far as to 
seprn bribery or other corrupting influences. The su- 
perior information and skill of many legislative agents 
and counsel enables them to convince by array of facts 
and figures so arranged as to seem to prove their case. 


} 
i 


8 LOBBYING 


A half-truth is difficult to combat. It is this ane : 
of lobbying which is proving a real menace to publi 
interests. | 

| 
Doctrine of our courts | 

In holding a contract for secret lobbying and 

sonal solicitation illegal the United States supreme 
court declared that it was “aware of no case in Eng 
lish or American jurisprudence where such an agree- 
ment was not held to be illegal and void.” Trist v. 
Child, 1874, 88 U. S. 441. | 


The real issue 

But the evils of lobbying are little affected by eae 
ing lobby contracts illegal and void. Such contracts 
become subjects of litigation only where the system of 
lobbying is imperfectly organized. The real menace 
arises when principal and agent work harmoniously! 
together against public interests for private ends. 


LOBBYING 9 


RULES, LAWS, AND JUDICIAL 
DECISIONS 


Foreign countries 

England. .The evils of lobbying have been largely 
eliminated by the system of private bill practice devel- 
eped in Parliament. The Standing Orders of the 
\House of Commons and the House of Lords prescribe 
strict regulations for parliamentary agents and counsel 
representing private or local interests and subject 
private bills to a quasi-judicial procedure as follows: 

All bills granting any corporate privileges or affect- 
iug’ private rights as those conferring powers on rail- 
ways, tramways, electric lighting, gas, and water 
conipanies, etc. must be introduced on petition and not 
on motion. Notice of such bills must be given nearly 
three months before the meeting of parliament and 
copies must be deposited in the Private Bill Office of 
the Commons. Memorials from opponents are also 
deposited and after preliminary investigation to insure ~ 
conformity to the Standing Orders and to secure full 
notice by advertisement to all persons interested, the 
petition is presented to the Commons. 

After the second reading the bill is referred to a 
committee: if a railway or canal bill, to a standing 


10 LOBBYING 


committee for those matters, otherwise to a committee 
of four members eree. 
he committee grant hearings and take evidence 

from promoters and opponents. Witnesses are exam- 
ined under oath and every clause of the bill is given a 
quasi-judicial consideration. 

After the return of the bill to the house its subse- 
quent stages are similar to those of a public bill. 

Every private bill must be in charge of some recog- 
nized parliamentary agent and no written or printed 
statement regarding any bill may be circulated in the 
house of Commons unless signed by some such agent 
who holds himself responsible for its accuracy. 

Every agent must be registered, must-give bond, and 
agree to abide by the Standing Orders of Parliament. 
He must also have a certificate from some member of 
parliament or of the bar and for any breach of require- 
mints he may be suspended or prohibited from further 
practice.’ 


British Colonies. With certain modifications, the 
English system of private bill practice in parliament is_ 
followed in Canada? and in the Australian Conn Ore 
wealth.® 


The Continent. On the continent the question pf 
lobbying has not as yet become so serious a matter as 
in England and in the United States. The reasons for 
this differ for the various countries. A partial ex- 
planation may be found in the fact that in some states 


‘See Standing Orders House of Commons relative to private 
business 1—249, and Standing Orders House of Lords 69—148. 
London, 1900. 


?See Bourinot, Parliamentary procedure and practice .... in 
Canada. 


3See Australia. The annotated constitution of the Australian 
commonwealth by Quick and Garran. 


f 
| 
| 


LOBBYING 11 


the government has a dominant influence in legislation 
and privileges are still distributed as favors; in others 
the legislative bodies and the government combined 
carefully investigate all applications for special privi- 
leges affecting private interests and subject franchises 
and grants to careful scrutiny and regulation; in still 
others quasi-public utilities are owned by the state and 
the rental of public property does not yield great 
private incomes. 

| 


United States 

In Marshall v. B. & O. R. Co. decided in 1853, the 
supreme court held that all persons whose interests 
may in any way be affected by any public or private 
act of a legislature have an undoubted right to urge 
their claims and argument either in person or by coun- 


sel professing to act for them before legislative com-_ 


mittees as well as in courts of justice, but a hired agent 


assuming to act in a different character is practicing | 


deceit on the legislature...and services involving the 
use of secret means or the exercise of sinister or per- 
sonal influences upon legislators are illegal. 57 U. S. 
314. 

Act of Congress, June 11, 1864, prohibits members 
of Congress from receiving compensation for services 
before a department. 
rm ~. 
: Alabama, Const. 4875, art. 4, sec. 42. Corrupt 
‘solicitation of legislators punished by fine and impris- 
jonment. 


Apmongs= en, Cade, 1901, sec. 93. Obtaining or 
seeking to obtain money upon a representation of im- 


properly influencing legislative action made a felony. 


ee 
: 


12 LOBBYING 


In such cases no person is excused from testifying on 
ground of self incrimination, but testimony not used 
against such person except for perjury. 


Arkansas. 


California. Const. 1879, art. 4, sec. 35. Lobbying 
is declared a felony. 

The term “lobbying” signifies to address or solicit mem- 
bers of a legislative body with the purpose of influencing 
their votes. Colusa Cu. v. Welch, 1898, 122 Cal. 428. 

Though the contract contemplates the use of personal 
solicitation, yet if no personal influence is brought to bear 
upon the members, and no dishonest, secret, or unfair 
means employed, to accomplish the object, it is not illegal. 
Foltz v. Cogswell, 1890, 86 Cal. 542. 

The board of supervisors of a county have no authority 
to employ special counsel for the purpose of influencing 
members of the legislature with respect to pending legis- 
lation affecting the county. Colusa Co. v. Welch, 1898, 122 
Cal. 428. 

Colorado. Rules of Legislature, 1905. Senate Rule 
31 and House Ruce 27. Privileges of floor extended 
only to state, legislative, and judicial officers, con- 
gressmen, ex-members, reporters, and other persons 
specially invited. In the Senate the president or any 
senator may invite. In the House notice of desired 
privilege must be in writing and consent of house had: 
no suspension of this rule. While either house is in 
committee of the whole privileges of floor extend only 
to state officers; others admitted within the bar; in the 
senate, employees are not to carry the card or name o7 
any person to any senator. \Attempting to influence 
the vote of any member during a session shall subject 
the offender, if an officer, to removal from office, if a _ 
visitor to forfeiture of all privileges) 


1See Arkansas under Prior notice of bills, p. 27. 


LOBBYING 13 


| Connecticut, Gen. St. 1902, sec. 1261. Attempt to 
Nxproperly influence legislation punished with fine or 
»‘prisonment or both. Entertainment of legislators, 
Mproper influence. 


. Delaware. 


| District of Columbia. 
(| All contracts for services in procuring legislation are 
[void from public policy.) Weed v. Black, 1875, 2 McArth. 
268. J 


Florida.? - 


acd 


Georgia. Const. 1877, art. I, sec. 2, par. 5. Lobby- 
ing is declared to be a crime. 

Code, 1895, sec. 3668. Lobby contracts void, as 
against pub.ic policy. . 


Idaho.?. 


Illinois. Rules of Legislature, 1905. Senate-Rule’_ 
60 and House Rule 5. Admission to floor, unless by 
‘special permission, granted only to state, legislative, 


jand judicial officers, ex-members, ex-state officers, and 
‘reporters. The House rule also includes members of 
constitutional convention and congressmen, while 
the Senate specifically excludes ex-members interested 


in pending legislation, 
> S 


Indiana. Rules of Legislature, 1905. Senate Rule 
38. Exclude all but members, officers, and ticket 
holders. House Rule 77. No person except state, 


1See Delaware under Subject and title of laws, p. 26. 
2See Florida under Prior notice of bills, p. 27. 
~*8See Idaho under Subject and title of laws, p, 26. 


| 


14 LOBBYING 


legislative, and judicial officers admitted unless by com- 
sent of speaker. } 


Towa. Rules of Legislature, 1906, Senate Rule Js, 
Admission to floor granted only to state, legis.ati’™, 
and judicial officers, ex-members and ex-state officers, 
Exceptions made upon special permission of the Presi- 
dent or of a member. No person is permitted to come 
upon the floor of the Senate or into cloak rooms to 
solicit or influence senators in their official action. Of- 
ficers or emp.oyees soliciting or endeavoring to influ- 
ence members of the legislature are to be dismissec, 
House Rule 66. Also permits admission to the floor 
for the families of members and gives each member 
the right to admit a friend. 


Kansas. 

A. contract for services as an attorney before a legisla- 
tive body is valid, put for lobby services is void, as against 
publis policy. McBratrney v. Chandler, 1879, 22 Kan. 69% 

Kentucky. St. 1899, sec. 1993: Any person whe 
attempts by corrupt means to influence the vote of a 
legislator, to be guilty of a misdemeanor: fine or im 


-prisonment or both. | 


| 
Louisiana, 


Any agreement which contemplates the use of private 
influence to secure legislation is void. Burney’s Heirs yv 
Ludeling, 1894, 47 La. Ann. 73. 


Maine. Rules of Legislature, 1905. Senate Rule, 
34 and House Rule 16. Prohibit members of legis’a-| 
ture from acting as counsel before committees. House’ 
Rule 24. Persons not members, except state officers,, 
etc. are admitted within hall only upon invitation by 


some member. 


LOBBYING 15 


Maryland. Laws, 1900, c. 328. Requires legisia- 
tive counsel or agents to register and to file written 
authorization from persons for whom thcy are to act, 
persons employing counse, to make sworn statement 
of expenses ; legislative dockets to be kept by secretary 
of state. The governor may require sworn statement 
of expenses for any particular bill. The law does not 
apply to municipalities. Penalty for violating provi- 
sions of law, fine or fine and disbarment from acting 
as legis.ative counsel or agent, for three years. 

Rulcs of Legislature, 1905. Senate Rule 55 and 
House Rule 5.. Persons not members adm-tted within 
the bar of the two houses only upon invitation. Ex- 
ception made for executive and judicial officers, ex- 
members, ctc. 


Massachusetts. Rev. Laws, 1902, c. 3, secs. 23-32. 
The main provisions are as follows: Any person, cor- 
poration, or association employing legislative agents 
or counse, are to enter the names of such counscl or 
agents upon dockets kept by the sergeant-at-arms. 
Employer and employee are both made rcsponsible for 
entering names within one week after agreement but 
either party may cnter fact of termination of employ- 
ment. Two dockets are to be kept: the one for coun- 
sel, employed to appear at public hearings of commit- 
tees or to advise in relation to Icgislation; the other for 
agents acting to influence legislation. The dockets 
are to contain the name and business address of the 
emp!oyer, the name, residence, and occupation of the 
person employed, the date and length of employment, 
and the special subjects of legislation to which the em- 
ployment relates. Additional entries are to be made 


16 LOBBYING 


as new subjects arise, so that the entries shall show al 
subjects of legislation in relation to which agents or 
counsel are employed. No legislative committee is 70 
allow any person to appear before it as counse: who is 
not duly registered. Legislative counsel shall not act 
as agent unless also entered upon the agent’s docket. 
Written authorization to act is to be filed, and compen- 
sation for services is not to be contingent upon stc- 
cess. Within thirty days after final adjournment 
of the legislature the sergeant-at-arms is to deposit 
dockets, with the secretary of the commonwealth and 
employers are to file sworn statements of expenses in 
such form as the secretary may prescribe; such state- 
ments to be open to public inspection. Penalty for 
violation of act on part of employer, not less than one 
hundred nor more than one thousand dollars; on part 
of agent, in addition to fine, disbarment from acting 
for three years. Act does not apply to city or town 
so-icitors. 


Michigan. 

Keeping open house for the entertainment of legislators 
does not constitute bribery. Randall v. E. N. A. 1893, 97 
Mich. 136. ' 


Minnesota. Rev. Laws, 1905, c. 99, sec. 2. Cor- 
rupt solicitation of legislators made punishable by fine 
imprisonment or both. 


Mississippi 


1See Mississippi under Prohibition of log-rolling, p. 26. 


LOBBYING 1% 


Missouri.* Rules of Legislature, 1905. Senate 
Rule 53, and House Rule 86. Unless invited by the 
Senate or the House, no persons except state, legisla- 
tive, and judicial officers, and congressmen are per-. 
mitted upon the floor. House a.so admits ex-members 
of legislature. 


Montana. Pen. Code, 1895, sec. 172. Any person 
obtaining or seeking to obtain anything of value on 
representation of influencing legislation improperly, 
guilty of felony. Not excused from testifying on 
ground of self incrimination. ‘Festimony not used 
against such person except for perjury. 


Nebraska. Rules of Legislature, 1905. Senate Rule 
43. No person admitted to floor except state, legisla- 
tive, and judicial officers, and congressman. House 
“Rule 11. Privileges of floor extended to state officers, 
etc. and such other persons as the House may admit. 


Nevada. Rules of Legislature, 1905. Senate Rule 
*49 and House Rule 57. Admission to floor, except on 
invitation by some member, granted only to legisla- 
tors, state officers, and in the House, ladies. A major- 
ity in either house may authorize the presiding officer 
_ to clear the floor of all such persons. 


New Hampshire. Const..1792, part 2, art. 7. Mem- 
bers of legislature not to take fees or act as counsel in 
any cause before legislature. 


1At the last legislative session Governor Folk issued an order. 
requiring lobbyists to register at the executive office upon com- 
ing to the capitol and also on leaving; to state the object of 
their visit to the governor and to the press: and to leave the 
eitvy within a limit of thirty hours. Fear of inquiry into their 
methods led to compliance. 


18 LOBBYING 


New Jersey. Legislature of 1905 adopted an antt- 
lobby resolution and appointed a special committee to 
investigate lobbying. 


New Merico. 


New York. 

It is allowable to employ counsel to appear before a 
legislative committee or the legislature itself to advocate or 
oppose a measure in which the individual has an interest. 
Lyon v. Mitchell, 1867, 36 N. Y. 241. 

But a contract for Iecbby services, for personal influence 
with members of the legislature is illegal and void. Mc- 
Kee v. Cheney, 1876, 52 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 144. 

Rules of Legis ature, 1906, Senate Rule 49 and 
House Rule 30. Admission to the floor granted only 
to legislators, and state officers, their clerks, deputies. 
etc. and reporters. The Senate also grants admission 
by card to ladies or to members of families of senators 
and of presiding officer; while the House grants 
further admission either upon the pcrmission of the 
speaker or by vote of the House. The House excludes 
reporters interested in Icgislation, or receiving com- 
pensation from any corporation for influencing ‘egisla- 
tion. 


North Carolina.* 


North Dakota. Rules of Legislature, 1905. Sen- 
ate Rule 37 and House Rule 44. Admission within 
the bar permitted only for state, legislative, and judi- 
cial officers, congressmen, ex-members of congress or 
legislature, members of the constitutional convention 


1See territories of the United States under Special legislation, 


Dek 
2See North Carolina under Prior notice of bills, p. 27. 


LOBBYING 19 


and federal officers of the state. Exceptions made in 
the Senate by vote and in the House on permission of 
speaker. Any person lobbying in the House, to forfeit 
privileges of floor. 


Ohio. 


Asking other members of the legislature to support bills, 
collecting and presenting facts and reasons to them, and 
making arguments to induce them to support the bills, 
constitute ‘official duty’’ and ‘‘action” within the statute 
making it a crime for a legislator to solicit from any per- 
son any valuable or beneficial thing to influence him with 
respect to his official duty or to influence his action in a 
matter pending before him. State v. Geyer, 1896, 3 Ohio 
N. (P2242. 


Rules of Legislature, 1904, Joint Rule 23. Visitors 
admitted may include: ex-members, state, legislative, 
and judicial officers, congressmen, governors of other 
states, clergymen by invitation of presiding officer, and 
pcrsons invited by any member of the general assem- 
bly. Reporters may be admitted within the bar. 


Oklahoma. 

A contract contingent upon legislative action but not 
stipulating for any act by either party other than a presen- 
tation of an ordinance to the city council containing the 
provisions desired, is not void. as against public policy. 
Baumhoff v. Okla. City Elec. & Gas & P. Co. 1904, 14 Okla. 
127. 


Oregon. Cr. Code, 1902, sec. 1894. Lobbying with 
members of legis!ature, without disclosing interest, de- 


clared to be a crime. 


The sole purpose and effect of this section was to make 
lobbying under the ci:cumstances herein described criminal. 
It does not render contracts valid made to secure lobbying 
services if they: were made under such circumstances that 
the lobbyist could rot be punished criminally. Sweeney 
v. McLeod, 1887, 15 Ore. 330. 


20 LOBBYING 


Pennsylvania. Const. 1873, sec. 78. Corrupt so- 
licitation of legislators punished by fine and imprison- 
ment. 

sec. 79. Person charged with corrupt solicitation 
not excused from testifying on ground of self incrim- 
ination ; such testimony not to be used against person 
except for perjury. 

Rules of Legislature, 1905. Senate Rule 28. No 
person admitted to floor during sessions, unless invited 
by a member, except state and legis ative officers, ex- 
members, and stenographers. House Rule 43. Per- 
sons admitted to floor include state officers, etc. and 
others specially introduced by a member by permission 
of the Speaker. 


Rhode Island. Const. 1842, art. 4, sec. 4. Legisla- 
tors shall not take fees or be of counsel in any case 
before either house, under pcnalty of forfeiting seat. 


South Carolina. 


South Dakota. Ru'es of Legislature, 1905. Senate 
Rule 8, and House Rule 47. Admission within the. bar 
permitted only to state, legislative, and judicial officers, 
ex-members, etc. and reporters. Exceptions made in 
the Senate on permission of the President and in the 
House by vote. 


Tennessee. Acts, 1897, c. 117. Declares lobbying 
to be a felony. 


Texas: 


1See South Carolina under Prior notice of bills, p, 27. 
2See Texas under Prior notice of bills, p. 27. 


LOBBYING 21 


Utah. Rev. St. 1898, sec. 4102. Any person hiring 
to influence legislation improperly, guilty of felony. 


Vermont. Const. 1793, c. 2, sec. 19. Prohibits rep- 
resentatives from acting as counsel or taking fee for 


advocating bill. 

A contract for the employment of personal influence 
or solicitation to procure the passage of a public or private 
law is void. Powers v. Skinner, 1861, 34 Vt. 274. 

Virgima.~. Code, 1904, sec. 3746. Paying or receiv- 
ing compensation for securing legislation punished 


with imprisonment and fine. 

This section intended to apply in the line of bribery and 
corruption and not for professional services, such as draft- 
ing petitions, setting forth client’s claim, taking testimony, 
collecting facts, preparing arguments, oral or written, ad- 
dresses to the legislature or its committee, with intention 
to reach its reason by argument. Yates v. Robertson, 1885, 
80 Va. 475. 


sec. 3748. Not to apply to any person having per- 
mission of legislative committee to appear before it. 


Washington. Const. 1889, sec. 62. Corrupt solici- 
tation of legislators punished by fine and imprison- 
ment. Testimony may not be withheld on ground of 
self incrimination, but not used against person testify- 
ing except for perjury. 


West Virginia. Acts, 1897, c. 14. Provides for the 
exclusion of lobbyists from the floor of either house 
of the legislature while in session. 


Wisconsin. Rev. St. 1898, sec. 4482. Giving or 
receiving, or offering to give or receive services to in- 
fluence legislation for compensation contingent upon 
success; or failing to disclose interest in bill when 


22 LOBBYING 


seeking to influence legislative action made punishable 
by fine or imprisonment. (Laws of Wisconsin, 1858, 
CeclA Sy Sets ile y 

Laws, 1899, c. 243. The main provisions of the 
law are as follows: 

‘sec. I. Persons employed to act as counsel or agent 
to promote or oppose any legislation affecting the pe- 
cumiary interests of any individual, association, or cor- 
poration as distinct from those of the whole people of 
the state are to be registered within one week after 
employment. Employer and employee both respons- 
ib e for entering name of counsel or agent upon legisla- 
tive docket; either may enter fact of termination of 
employment. | 

sec. 2, The secretary of state is to keep two 
dockets: the one for legislative counsel before commit- 
tees, to contain the names of counsel or persons em- 
ployed to appear at public hearings before committees 
of the legislature for the purpose of making arguments 
or examining witnesses and also the names of any reg- 
ular legal counse; who act or advise in relation to legis- 
lation; the other for legislative agents employed in 
connection with any legislation included within the 
terms of sec. 1. The dockets are to be public records, 
open to the inspection of any citizen, and are to contain 
the names of employers and of counsel and agents, 
with addresses, occupation, date and length of employ- 
ment, and the subjects of legislation to which the em- 
ployment relates. ? 

sec. 3. It is the duty of persons employing counsel 
or agents to make additional entries whenever further 
subjects of legislation arise, specifically referring to 


LOBBYING 23 


the petitions, orders, bi.ls, etc. so that the dockets 
sha.l shory all the subjects of legislation in relation to 
which any counsel or agent is employed. All agents 
and counsel are to be registered before acting. Em- 
ployment ‘for compensation contingent upon success 
not permitted. Legislative counsel not also entered on 
the agents’ docket are limited to appearing before 
committees and to giving legal advice. 

sec. 4. Counsel and agents are to file written au- 
thorization to act. 

sec. 5. Within thirty days after final adjournment 
of the leg:slature, every person, corporat.on, or asso- 
ciation employing legislative agents or counsel shall 
file a sworn statement of expcnses with the secretary 
of state. 

sec. 6. Penalty for violation by employers, not less 
than two hundred nor more than five thousand dollars ; 
for violation by agents or counsel not less than one 
hundred nor more than one thousand dollars and dis- 
barment from acting for three years. 

sec. 7. Municipalities and other public corporations, 
exempt. 

Laws, 1905, c. 472. Makes it unlawful for any 
legislative counsel or agent to attempt to influence any 
Icgislator personally and directly otherwise than by 
appearing before the regular committees, or by news- 
paper publications, or by public addresses, or by writ- 
ten or printed statements, arguments, or briefs deliv- 
ered to each member of the legislature; provided that 
twenty-five copies be first deposited with the secretary 
of state. State and federal officers and employees, 
having pectiniary interests in any measure are likewise 


24 LOBBYING 


prohibited from attempting to influence legislators 
otherwise than is permitted to legislative counsel and 
agents. Admission to floor of either house prohibited 
for legislative counsel or agents except upon invitation 
of such house. Penalty for violation of act, fine and 
imprisonment. Counsel or agents of municipalities, 
exempt. 

Rules of Legis:ature for 1907. Admission to floor 
of the two houses granted only to state, legislative, and 
judicial officers, regents of educational institutions, 
congressmen, ex-members of the legislature, not en- 
gaged in defeating or promoting any pending legisla- 
tion, all editors of newspapers within the state, and 
reporters for the press, who confine thémselves to their 
professional duties, and such other persons as the pre- 
siding officer upon the order of the house may invite. 


Wyonmmne. Const 1880, art. =3) seca,.A5, \ Corrupt 
solicitation of legislators made punishable by )fine and 
imprisonment. it 


r% 
ail 


LOBBYING 25 


REMEDIES 


The leading provisions so far enacted may be 
roughly grouped under: 1. restrictions on legislators ; 
2. limitations upon legislative procedure; 3. restrain- 
ing devices; 4. positive remedies. 


Restrictions on legislators 


Bribery. Under the common law bribery was al- 
ways acrime. In certain jurisdictions it has been 


made a felony. 


Compare laws of Ala. Ark. Col. Fla. La. Md. N. Y. 
Pa. We Vas 


Acceptance of railway passes and similar favors by 


legislators is unlawful in a number of states. 
Compare laws of Fla. Ky. Mo. Wash. Wis. 


Acting as counsel. Provisions prohibiting legisla- 
tors from acting as counsel in any cause before the 
legislature were embodied in constitutions of Ameri- 


can states before the end of the 18th century. 


See N. H. Const. 1872, part 2, art. 7, and Vt. Const. 1793, c. 
2, sec. 19. 


Not to vote, if interested. Requiring legislators to 
abstain from voting upon bills in which they have a 


26 LOBBYING 


private interest was early an acknowledged principle 


of parliamentary usage. 


For constitutional provisions compare Pa. Const. 1875, 
sec. 80, and Tex. Const. 1875, art. 3, sec. 22. 


Prohibition of log-rolling. Constitutional and statu- 
tory provisions against log-rolling have been adopted 
in a number of states. The following illustrations are 
typical: 

Arizona. Pen. Code, 1901, sec. 92. Makes log-rolling 
punishable with imprisonment, forfeiture of office and dis- 
franchisement. 

Minnesota. Rev. Laws, 1905, ch. 99, sec. 3. Makes log- 
rolling punishable with imprisonment or fine or both. 

Mississippi. Const. 1890, sec. 40. Requires legislators 
to take oath not to eugage in log-rolling. 

Utah. Rey. St. 1598, sec. 4096. Declares log-rolling a 
felony. 

Also compare constitutional provisions of Col. Mont. 
N. D. and Wy. declaring log-rolling to be bribery. 


Limitations upon legislative procedure 

Subject and title of laws. The provisions found in 
a majority of our states that each law shall embrace 
but one subject to be expressed in the title points to a 
time, not yet entirely passed, when special privileges 
and franchises were smuggled through legislatures un- 
der cover of innocent titles and when log- See was 


more openly practiced than at present. 


Purpose of this provision, to prevent log-rolling. People 
v. Collins, 1854, 3 Mich. 348. 

And. to prevent surprise and fraud upon legislature. 
State ex rel. v. Ranson, 1880, 73 Mo. 78. 

Design was to prevent the uniting of various objects in 
one bill for the purpose of combining various pecuniary in- 
terests in support of the whole. Conner v. Mayor, etc. 1851, 
5 N. Y. 285. 

Purpose is to prevent fraud and deception by conceal: 
ment. Astor v. A. Ry. Co. 1889, 113 N. Y. 93. 

- Also compare constitutional provisions of Del. Const. 
1897, art. 6, sec. 16; and Id. Const. 1889, art. 3. y 


ey 


LOBBYING 27 


Special legislation. Provisions prohibiting special 
legislation where general law is applicable have been 
adopted “with few exceptions by our states. 

The purpose was to exclude corruption and favoritism. 
Nelson v. McArthur, 1878, 38 Mich. 204. 

Compare constitutional provisions of the several states; 
and act of Congress, July 30, 1886, prohibiting the passage 
of local or special laws in territories of the U. S. 


Appropriation bills. Several states require that ap- 
propriation biuls be passed a stated number of days be- 
fore the close of the session. | 

The power to veto separate items of such bills was 
conferred on the governors of many of our states to 


arrest log-rolling. 


Compare constitutional provisions of Ala. Ill. Lr. Mo. 
Neb. Nene Pa. Tex.’ Wash. Wy: 


Holding up appropriation bills still offers a strong 
means of offense for professional lobbyists. 


Prior notice of bills. Requiring public notice prior 
to the introduction of private bills is a further limita- 
tion on legislative procedure at least partially effective 
against lobbying. 

Compare Constitutional provisions of Ala. Ark. Fla. La. 
N. C. Pa. S. C. Tex. Va. also the opinion of the supreme 
court of New Hampshire to House of Representatives, 1885, 
63 N. H. 625, holding c. 2, sec. 1, N. H. Gen Laws, requiring 
a term. of notice for private bills, unconstitutional. 

For prohibitions against introducing new bills during 
the last days of the session see constitutional provisions 
of La. Mich.1 Wash. and the following decisions: 

The people in a tree country have a right to notice of 
proposed legislation and an opportunity to express their 
assent or dissent. Att’y Gen. v. Rice, 1887, 64 Mich. 385. 

When the journal shows that the original bill was used 
for purposes of substitution and that the substitute was for 


1The Michigan provision, Const. 1850, art. 4, sec. 28, limiting 
the introduction of rew bills to the first fifty days of session was 
repealed in 1904. 


28 LOBBYING 


( 


a different purpose, the act is void. Att’y Gen. v. P. R. Co. 
1893, 97 Mich. 589. 

Effect of \amitations. As to how far these limita- 
tions have served to regulate lobbying is a mooted 
question. As a general thing they have been effective 
to some degree, but certain authorities hold that the 
restrictions on special and local legislation have merely 
resulted in an undesirable modification of our general 
Jaws for special ends, and that requirements for pub- 
lished notice have been of little avail against secret 
manipulation of bills serving private ends. 


Legislative power. he legislature has no power to 
bind a future legislature as to the mode in which it 


shall exercise its constitutional rights. 

See De Bolt v._0. L. I. T. Co. 1853, 1 Ohio St. 563; Bright- 
man v. Kirner, 1867, 22 Wis. 54; and Mix v. I. C. R. Co: 
1886, 116 Ill. 502. 

Since each legislature may determine its own rules 
of procedure, restrictions imposed by one may be re- 
pealed by the next. To preclude the possibility of easy 
repeal many of the restrictions enumerated have been 
embodied as constitutional provisions. 

In the absence of constitutional restrictions, it re- 
mains with each legislative body to determine the 
limits of its own regulation. 


\ Restraining devices 

Registration. The provisions for registration in 
Massachusetts, Maryland and Wisconsin are somewhat 
similar. They include: registration of legislative coun- 
sel and agents, the keeping of dockets by the secretary 
of state, the requirement to register for each particu- 


LOBBYING 29 


lar measure, the filing of written authorization to act 
and the statement of expenses. Municipalities and 
minor political units are exempt. Penalties for vioia- 
tion vary but include fine or disbarment from acting 


or both. 
Compare Mass. Rev. Laws, 1902, c. 3, sec. 28-32; Md. 


Laws, 1900, c. 328; Wis. Laws, 1899, c. 243. 

Prohibition of secret lobbying. Attempting to influ- 
ence members of the legislature other than by appear- 
ance before committees is forbidden by c. 472, Laws of 
Wisconsin, 1905. 


Exclusion from floor. Provisions excluding legisla- 
tive agents and counsel from the privileges of the floor 
except under certain conditions have in some cases 
been enacted into iaw, but more generally they form 


part of the rules of legislatures. 


Compare Wis. Laws, 1905, c. 472; Rules of Legislature 
of Col. Ill. Ind. Me. Md. and Neb. for 1905; N. Y. and 
Ohio, 1906; and proposed rules for Wis. 1907. 


-Positive remedies 
' Methods employed by some of our states to enable 
legislators to get at the facts of any question with dis- 


‘patch include the following provisions : 
Sot 


Publicity of committee proceedings. The develop- 
ment of the committee system resulted in the with- 
drawal of many important phases of legislative action 
from direct public scrutiny. Among the measures em- 
ployed to overcome this disadvantage are: publicity in 
the proceedings of committees with publication of all 
hearings granted to private parties, prior notice of such 
hearings to give all interested an opportunity to hear 


30 LOBBYING 


or be heard either in person or by counsel, publication 
in permanent form of the evidence and findings. 


~ Evidence as to facts. A quasi-judicial procedure 
thrown about private bill legislation in England has 
enabled parliament to secure accurate information on 
bills affecting private interests. Evidence is taken 
from promoters and opponents, witnesses are examined 
under oath, and careful consideration given every point 


brought before the private bill committees. 

Compare Va. Const. 1902, sec. 51, providing for a joint 
legislative committee on special, private, and local legis- 
lation. 

Agencies for securing information. The average 
legislator is a busy man. Intent upon doing his pub- 
lic duty he is often confronted with hundreds of bills. 
during a single session. He must vote yes or no with 
little time for consideration. His greatest demand is 


for accurate impartial data giving all the facts in the. 


case. The lobbyist gives him but one side. The pub- 
lic whose interests are at stake are too frequently in- 
different a) 
Various agencies for getting at the facts are being 
developed by different legislatures. In some states the 
permanent state commissions, bureaus, and depart- 
ments collect valuable data in convenient form for 
legislative reference: in others special investigating 
committees such as the Armstrong insurance commit- 
tee of New York have secured valuable evidence as a 
basis for legislative action: in New York, Wisconsin, 
and California legislative reference departments have 
been established for the collection of data bearing on 


he 


“i 


* 


LOBBYING 31 
the legislation of other states; for the compilation of / 
laws on particular subjects; and for securing knowl- 
edge of the results of laws along lines upon which the | 


a 


legislature must pass judgment. ie 


eh eee ee? eae 
~ar. Soy ee fea Sy) a 














0112 115530 


